BHAGWAN S O GANPATRAO GODSAY AND RAGHUNATH S O DHONDIBA LOHAR AND SUDHABAI Vs. KACHRULAL S O BASTIMAL SAMDARIYA AND PANDURANGRAO S O AMBADASRAO RATNALIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four revision applications have beed placed before us for hearing upon a reference made by Ratnaparkhi, J., who differed from the view adopted by S.J. Deshpande, J., on the construction of Rule 3-A of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure. At the outset, Counsel for the petitioners and respondents agreed that we should dispose of not only the question of construction of Rule 3-A of Order XLI but all the question arising in these civil revision applications so that the civil revision applications need not be sent back to a Single Judge for disposal in accordance with our decision. (i) Civil Revision Application No. 6 of 1986

(2.) In this Revision Application, petitioner is the owner of house bearing Municipal No. 2/771 situated at Tilak Road, Beed. Respondent Kachrulal is the tenant. The petitioner filed eviction Suit No. 85/RC/8 under section 15 of the Hyderabad Rent Control Act, 1954 on the ground of non-payment of rent and acquisition of alternative accommodation. The eviction suit was allowed by order dated 7th November, 1985 and the respondent was ordered to vacate the premises within 30 days from the date of the order. The defendant preferred appeal to the District Judge at Beed under section 25 of the Hyderabad Rent Control Act. He urged that notice of the proceedings before the Rent Controller was never served on him, and the order for substituted service was erroneously made. He came to know the order of eviction made ex parte on 14-12-1985 when he was served with the order of the Rent Controller through the Tahsildar, Beed. He preferred an appeal on 16-12-1985 which was within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the order of eviction. Thus, the appeal was not barred by law of limitation. With the appeal, the petitioner made separate applications for condonation of delay and stay of execution of the order. The applications were made out of abundant caution. The learned District Judge heard Counsel. The respondent urged that having regard to Order XLI, Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Appellate Court cannot grant interim stay until the application for condonation of delay was disposed of and the appeal was admitted. The District Judge invoked the inherent powers of Civil Courts and stayed execution of the order of eviction pending decision of the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The petitioners has preferred this revision application against the order granting interim stay. (ii) Civil Revision Application Nos. 8, 9 and 10 of 1986.

(3.) The Petitioners in these Civil Revision Applications were defendants in Regular Civil Suits Nos. 238 of 1984, 235 of 1984 and 237 of 1984 respectively in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Biloli, district Nanded. The suits were for possession of lands. The respondent was the plaintiff in each of these three suits. The petitioners-defendants engaged an Advocate to represent them. He did not file written statements. Eventually ex parte decrees for possession were made in the three suits. The three defendants then filed Regular Civil Appeals Nos. 51 of 1985, 52 of 1985 and 50 of 1985 respectively in the District Court at Nanded. The appeals were accompanied by applications for stay and applications for condonation of delay in filing the respective appeals. In all the three appeals the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Nanded, by his orders dated 17th August, 1985 granted interim orders and stayed the execution of the decrees. But on hearing Counsel for both the parties he vacated the orders of stay. According to the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Order XLI Rule 3-A prohibits grant of stay until the application for condonation of delay is disposed of. These orders which are impugned in the Civil Revision Applications were made on 2-1-1986. II Questions for Consideration :